On Sep 25, 1:51 am, Jeroen Hegeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Your code does NOT include any statements that could have produced the > > above line of output -- IOW, you have not posted the code that you > > actually ran. > > Oh my, I must have cleaned it up a bit too much, hoping that people > would focus on the issue instead of the formatting of the output > strings! Did you miss your morning coffee???
The difference was not a formatting difference; it was complete absence of a statement, raising the question of what other non-obvious differences there might be. You miss the point: if it is obvious that the posted code did not produce the posted output (common when newbies are thrashing around trying to solve a problem), some of the audience may not bother trying to help with the main issue -- they may attempt to help with side issues (as I did with the fugly code bloat) or just ignore you altogether. > > > Your code is already needlessly monstrously large. > > Which I realised and apologised for beforehand. An apology does not change the fact that the code was needlesly large (AND needed careful post-linefolding reformatting just to make it runnable) and so some may not have bothered to read it. > > > And Python 2.5.1 does what? Strike 3. > > Hmm, I must have missed where it said that you can only ask for help > if you're using the latest version... You missed the point again: that your problem may be fixed in a later version. > In case you're wondering, 2.5.1 > is not _really_ that wide-spread as most of the older versions. I wasn't wondering. I know. I maintain a package (xlrd) which works on Python 2.5 all the way back to 2.1. It occasionally has possibly similar "second iteration goes funny" issues (e.g. when reading 120MB Excel spreadsheet files one after the other). You mention that removing some attributes from a class may make your code stop exhibiting cliff-face behaviour. If you can produce two versions of your code that actually demonstrate the abrupt change, I'd be quite interested in digging into it, to our possible mutual benefit. > > For handling the bit extraction stuff, either > [snip] > > (b) do a loop over the bit positions > > Now that sounds more useful. I'll give that a try. > I'm glad you found something possibly more useful in my posting :-) Cheers, John -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
